← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 16781 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2005-02-15
2005-02-15 23:33 | User Profile
Scholar Says U.S. May Face AIDS Epidemic Like Africa
Robert Stacy McCain THE WASHINGTON TIMES July 12, 2000
Citing U.N. data on HIV infection rates, J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario whose studies of race, behavior and genetics have been attacked by left-wing academics, told a Washington press conference yesterday that blacks in the United States and Canada "are on the brink of an AIDS epidemic" comparable to the crisis in Africa.
A "taboo on discussing the evidence" of racial differences in sexual behavior "tragically . . . is killing people," Mr. Rushton said.
"Right now, about 2 percent of U.S. blacks are living with HIV/AIDS," Mr. Rushton said at the National Press Club. "That was the level of AIDS infection in Africa just 15 years ago. Now African rates are between 8 percent and 20 percent." If the HIV infection rates for U.S. blacks continue to mirror the spread of the virus among blacks in Africa, Mr. Rushton said, "we are faced with the threat of an African AIDS epidemic within large sections of the black population of the United States, and also in the Caribbean."
As early as 1989, Mr. Rushton said, he "predicted the very situation [of HIV infection among U.S. blacks] we've got today."
The warning came as U.S. health officials convening in South Africa - which has seen an exploding rate of HIV infection in recent years - warned of the global consequences of the AIDS epidemic.
Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala announced the formation of Crisis Response Teams "to help combat the spread of HIV/AIDS among racial and ethnic minority populations."
AIDS is the leading cause of death for black men ages 25-44 in the United States, according to the federal Office of Public Health and Science, while the disease is also the country's third-leading cause of death for black women ages 25-44.
Mr. Rushton's research has been attacked as "academic Nazism" and "racial pornography" by Hampton (Va.) University sociologist Steven J. Rosenthal.
"Rushton is dead wrong," John Moore, chairman of the anthropology department at the University of Florida, said in 1997.
Rutgers University's Transaction Publishers, citing protests, has stopped distribution and destroyed 55,000 copies of a special abridged edition of Mr. Rushton's 1995 book, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior," after review copies of the 106-page booklet had been mailed to scholars around the country.
One chapter of that booklet - titled "Sex, Hormones, and AIDS" - addressed behavior-related racial disparities in rates of infection for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), which Mr. Rushton attributes to genetic differences.
"Race differences in sexual behavior have results in real life," Mr. Rushton wrote in the booklet, noting that "the 1997 syphilis rate among blacks was 24 times the white rate. . . . Racial differences also show in the current AIDS crisis."
Although he is hesitant to suggest how public policy might apply his findings - "my job is to get the truth out there," he says - Mr. Rushton suggested, "I would have thought the greater threat of AIDS to blacks [would lead to] targeting treatment to the populations that are most at-risk" for infection.
Robert A. Gordon, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University who joined Mr. Rushton and others at yesterday's press conference, said efforts to suppress Mr. Rushton's research are the result of "a dogmatic egalitarianism in the social sciences."
é 2000 News World Communications, Inc.
[url]http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/rushton.html[/url]
2005-02-15 23:39 | User Profile
AIDS is a quite righteous disease - it wipes out sodomites, junkies and sexually promiscuous people. For some reason black people seem to show up a lot in these categories and therefore suffer disproportionately.
Petr
2005-02-16 00:16 | User Profile
ya, i can i already expect to hear fedgov inc bemoaning how we need to spend multi-billions more to save ourselves from ourselves. as if the 19 billion to africa wasnt enough, speaking of which, did congress authorize that boondogle being pushed by jorge dubya?
btw, just 2% of blacks have aids ? seems low to me
also this part:
If the HIV infection rates for U.S. blacks continue to mirror the spread of the virus among blacks in Africa, Mr. Rushton said, "we are faced with the threat of an African AIDS epidemic within large sections of the black population of the United States, and also in the Caribbean."
The old saying about the jungle and the monkey...still holds
2005-02-16 01:56 | User Profile
Mr. Rushton said, "we are faced with the threat of an African AIDS epidemic within large sections of the black population of the United States, and also in the Caribbean."
What are we going to do about this? It's terrible. It is also a threat to our economy, not to mention our culture.
Without its black population can the country even survive?
2005-02-16 02:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Mr. Rushton's research has been attacked as "academic Nazism" and "racial pornography" by Hampton (Va.) University sociologist Steven J. Rosenthal.[/QUOTE] I would say the Jews have lost this battle and are looking increasingly foolish by continuing to defend an untenable position
I predict they will soon retreat from this lost cause and regroup around the banner of [I]nonblack[/I] racial equality
Defending Africans from themselves is a futile and thankless task
2005-02-16 02:18 | User Profile
The most important part of the article:
[QUOTE]"Right now, about 2 percent of U.S. blacks are living with HIV/AIDS," Mr. Rushton said at the National Press Club. "That was the level of AIDS infection in Africa just 15 years ago. Now African rates are between 8 percent and 20 percent." If the HIV infection rates for U.S. blacks continue to mirror the spread of the virus among blacks in Africa, Mr. Rushton said, "we are faced with the threat of an African AIDS epidemic within large sections of the black population of the United States, and also in the Caribbean."[/QUOTE]
2005-02-16 02:21 | User Profile
I'm not a biologist or a geneticist, but something that Rushton (and others) seem to neglect is that blacks very likely suffer from a genetic SUCCEPTIBILITY to AIDS, irrespective of their promiscuous behavior patterns. Promiscuity alone does not account for the rate of AIDS infection in blacks...they appear to be massively vulnerable to the virus.
2005-02-16 02:30 | User Profile
At my age is easy to avoid AID, no more viagra for Ponce hehehehehehehe.
2005-02-16 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE]A "taboo on discussing the evidence" of racial differences in sexual behavior "tragically . . . is killing people," Mr. Rushton said.
"Right now, about 2 percent of U.S. blacks are living with HIV/AIDS," Mr. Rushton said at the National Press Club. "That was the level of AIDS infection in Africa just 15 years ago. Now African rates are between 8 percent and 20 percent." If the HIV infection rates for U.S. blacks continue to mirror the spread of the virus among blacks in Africa, Mr. Rushton said, "we are faced with the threat of an African AIDS epidemic within large sections of the black population of the United States, and also in the Caribbean."[/QUOTE]
If there is any truth in this prediction, that seems extremely possible, then this may be one instance where this "taboo on discussing the evidence of racial differences" may have a positive result.:thumbsup:
2005-02-16 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I'm not a biologist or a geneticist, but something that Rushton (and others) seem to neglect is that blacks very likely suffer from a genetic SUCCEPTIBILITY to AIDS, irrespective of their promiscuous behavior patterns. Promiscuity alone does not account for the rate of AIDS infection in blacks...they appear to be massively vulnerable to the virus.[/QUOTE] A non-PC [URL=http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/mar6_2003.html#link12]Article on AIDS in Africa[/URL]
Note in particular the point about "dry sex"
2005-02-16 04:27 | User Profile
Maybe HIV is just a racist virus. Maybe it just needs sensitivity training?
"blacks very likely suffer from a genetic SUCCEPTIBILITY to AIDS, irrespective of their promiscuous behavior patterns" White homosexuals and IV-drug users don't seem to have genetic protection against AIDS.
2005-02-16 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] White homosexuals and IV-drug users don't seem to have genetic protection against AIDS.[/QUOTE] Fags and junkies, by definition, engage in bizarre, high risk behaviors that make them succeptible to infection. Sure, there are a lot of black fags and junkies, but those sorts of behaviors don't account for 20-40% infection rates in Sub-Saharan Africa.
2005-02-16 05:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]White homosexuals and IV-drug users don't seem to have genetic protection against AIDS.[/QUOTE]
Some do...
[url]http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/516072.html[/url]
[QUOTE]MONDAY, Nov. 17 (HealthDayNews) -- New research suggests the tiny number of people who are immune to AIDS are the descendants of Europeans who developed resistance to smallpox in the Middle Ages.
"Smallpox has left a signature on our genetic makeup, providing a benefit to us 700 years later," says study coauthor Alison P. Galvani, an epidemiologist at the University of California at Berkeley.
In total, about 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS. They share one trait in common: a pair of mutated genes that prevent their immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets HIV, the AIDS virus, break in. It's like a lock and key, Galvani explains: The virus can't gain entry because the lock isn't there.
To be born with a pair of the mutated genes, people must inherit them from both parents. About 10 percent to 15 percent of descendants of Northern Europeans have just one mutated gene, which provides limited protection: It takes longer for those infected with the HIV to actually develop AIDS.[/QUOTE]
2005-02-16 06:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mmartins]A non-PC [URL=http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/mar6_2003.html#link12]Article on AIDS in Africa[/URL]
Note in particular the point about "dry sex"[/QUOTE]
I don't buy this "dry sex" thing.
I think the much more likely explanation is that they engage in a lot of anal intercourse as a birth control measure. It's common the the third world.
2005-02-16 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"Right now, about 2 percent of U.S. blacks are living with HIV/AIDS," Mr. Rushton said at the National Press Club. "That was the level of AIDS infection in Africa just 15 years ago. Now African rates are between 8 percent and 20 percent." [/QUOTE] As always, there is no basis for any estimates of the prevalence of HIV or AIDS in Africa. The numbers are essentially fabricated to suit the purposes of whoever is doing the fabricating -- usually governments, agencies, researchers, or charities with dollar signs in their eyes.
2005-02-16 18:41 | User Profile
One thing that I would like to know and no one talks about, where is the one billion dollar that Bush promised Africa in order to help fight aids and to help those with aids??? PUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF is gone and Africa will never see one red American cent.
2005-02-16 20:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]One thing that I would like to know and no one talks about, where is the one billion dollar that Bush promised Africa in order to help fight aids and to help those with aids??? PUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF is gone and Africa will never see one red American cent.[/QUOTE]
I think it was 19 billion that el presidente promised. id like to know the status of that boondogle. Did congress authroize the money, or do we even bother asking congress anymore ?
2005-02-16 23:11 | User Profile
Should it really suprise anyone that when you import Africans into our nation, while at the same time subsidising the irresponsible behavior of the domestic North American Land Apes, the result is an epidemic of diseases?
2005-02-17 01:35 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
Well I will add I don't buy the no Sodomites in Africa claim.
2005-02-17 07:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis
Well I will add I don't buy the no Sodomites in Africa claim.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
I mean, c'mon. Anybody who knows the nogs know they're always bungholing each other. They're natually promiscuous, and sodomy is just one of the things they do much more regularly than other folks. There's really NO DOUBT in my mind about that.
As a group blacks have very low IQ. It's easy to forget just how dumb (as measured by IQ) Africans are, where average IQ=72. That means that about half of all Africans have IQs IN THE '60s! Our minds reel at that. How could that be?! We can't conceptualize it, and so we continue on in our very dangerous delusion that blacks are similar enough to us that the same rules apply to them as apply to us. But that's just wrong.
In order to picture the situation, I suggest the following thought experiment.
Imagine a group home for retarded people, Average IQ=72, and lots of them have IQs in the high fifties and low 60s. By our standards it's not a pleasant place, but the paid supervisors do a reasonably good job (there were a few abuse scandals), and the residents are mostly fed, warm and safe. The staff keeps discipline, does the planning, sets the schedule. The residents work and even draw a little allowance for candy and cigarettes. Life goes on.
Now imagine that crusading social reformers decide that the residents' dependent status violates their human dignity. They're capable of taking care of themselves! Ater a big hue and cry funding is cut and the staff is fired.
What would that group home look like if left to its own devices?
I think it would become in short order hell on Earth. The residents would suffer terribly, and the strong would victimize the weak. There would be sexual depravity of every kind. Disease, poverty, dirt, flies, child abuse, hunger. The resulting chaos and horror would occasionally require the attention of their unfortunate neighbors, but mostly the rest of the world just wants them out of sight and out of mind. The crusading social reformers would never admit that they were wrong, however, and would begin to demand that money be transferred to whatever retard was running the house. The town starts to pay money to keep a lid on the place, even as the stench grows unbearable.
That's a parable of Africa since about 1950. As bad as things were under colonial rule in Africa, it was much better than this. Look at Congo. Look at Zimbabwe. Look at Liberia. Look at Sudan. Take away the white supervisors and the retarded African residents will turn the place into a sewer in no time at all.
It isn't the fault of blacks that they are, as a group, borderline mentally retarded, at least in terms of the very narrow measure of human ability, IQ. In fact, I don't even blame blacks for decolonization. They're children who fell for an flattering story Jews and other liberals spun for them. Hannibal was black. Negores built Great Zimbabwe and not Arab traders with black slave labor. Egypt was a black civilization. All Africans had to do was rid themselves of the English and French colonists and they'd all benefit from Africa's unlimited natural resources, as if oil and gold spring from the ground naturally and without the need for engineers.
No, I don't blame them. As a group they're idiot savants - dumb as rocks but possessed of a myriad other talants. They need to be cared for and not offerred ego stroking nonsense about how they have a right to sit at the same table as the European and Asian grown ups. I do blame all the liberals (many of them Jews) who removed from those hapless children the only adult supervision they had, however imperfect it was, forcing them to dwell in an anomic Lord of the Flies hell on Earth.
2005-02-18 01:09 | User Profile
[url]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/urban/471/2003/00000053/00000003/art00051[/url]
Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective Authors: Curnoe D.1; Thorne A.1
Source: Homo, March 2003, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 201-224(24)
Publisher: Urban & Fischer
From the abstract: [B]The genetic proximity of humans and chimpanzees has been used to suggest these species are congeneric. Our analysis of genetic distances between them is consistent with this proposal.[/B]
That is to say, Curnoe & Thorne think chimps should be classed as part of the same species as humans. As crazy as that may sound, their analysis of genetic distances includes comparisons between various races and one another, and between various races and chimps:
Our analyses using 24 genetic distances provide an estimated speciation rate of 1-13 with a mean of 4 for all DNA distances (table 1). Some of the speciation rates in table 1 are <1. This results from the fact that [B]some of the distances between humans and chimpanzees, when halved, are below those between Africans and Asians. [/B]
Thus, according to several sets of figures used by Curnoe & Thorne, the genetic distance between humans and chimps is less than twice the distance between between Africans and Asians.
2005-02-18 01:17 | User Profile
From Resistance Records, of all places, a discussion of a study by Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.
[url]http://www.resistance.com/zine/Articles/Facing%20Facts%20Racial%20Realities.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). [B]So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps.[/B] Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":
[I]...the SO [Sokoto Nigerian - my note] population is the furthest from all the other human populations.[/I] [/QUOTE]
2005-02-18 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]From Resistance Records, of all places, a discussion of a study by Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.
[url]http://www.resistance.com/zine/Articles/Facing%20Facts%20Racial%20Realities.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
What (if anything) does this mean in terms of evolutionary time?
When did the split occur?